bcfg2

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Dec 19 16:44:40 UTC 2006


On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 10:15 -0600, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 08:58 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 14:14 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 10:23:31PM -0600, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> > >>> Another option to look into for configuration management:
> > 
> > Has anyone looked at puppet?
> > http://reductivelabs.com/projects/puppet/
> 
> I haven't looked at Puppet in depth, but one con is that it's written in
> Ruby (not that there's anything wrong with that).  But there may be
> license issues with bcfg2 so that may be an option as well.
> 
skvidal was able to articulate a good reason to not use ruby for the
config stack:  Anytime we add an interpreted language to the
dependencies we need to get a system up and running we're adding another
language stack we need to confirm works with our setup before performing
an upgrade.

That aside, I think the stateless people have been using puppet and
generally like it.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/infrastructure/attachments/20061219/a9774919/attachment.bin 


More information about the infrastructure mailing list